Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) SECTION 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, authorises the Collector to order the confiscation of foodgrains, edible oilseeds or edible oils in pursuance of an order made under Section 3 of that Act if he is satisfied that there has been a contravention of such order. For the same contravention the dealer is liable to be punished under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act to the punishments mentioned therein (Sic) Under Clause (b) of Section 7(1) any property in respect of which the order has been contravened or such part thereof as the Court may deem fit shall be forfeited to the Government. Under the proviso the Court can refrain from directing the forfeiture of the seized property if it is of the opinion that it is unneces-sary to direct it.
(2.) THE question is whether the contravention spoken of in section 6-A has the same legal incidence and consequences and has the same nature and character as the contravention made punishable by section 7. In Nathu Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1966 SC 43 the Supreme Court held that mens rea was an essential ingredient of an offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. An intentional contravention of an order made under Section 3 of that Act has to be established. If it is proved that the breach of an order under Section 3 was under a bona fide belief that the dealer could legally store the feodgrains seized, without infringing any order, there would be no "contravention" under Section 7 of the Act. In my opinion the contravention attracting the provisions of section 6A is of the same character. It is to be seen that the same transaction of seizure of foodgrains on the ground that an order under Section 3 has been violated attracts liability to forfeiture under section 6A as well as punishment under Section 7. Section 6A as well as section 7 expressly use the same word "contravention" on the existence of which the power to take action arises. Under section 6A the Collector has to be satisfied that there has been a contravention of the order. Under Section 7 the Court has to find contravention of the same order. Two provisions are in pari materia. They should bear the same significance and legal incidents. Thus for satisfying himself that the provisions of an order under Section 3 have been contravened, the Collector would be entitled to take into consideration the question whether there was an intentional contravention of the order, or whether the conduct of the dealer was bona fide, under the belief that he was acting legally. These considerations would not be outside the purview of the satisfaction of the Collector that there has been a contravention of the order.
(3.) THIS view is strengthened by the scheme of the Act. Under Section 7 after the Court finds that there has been a contravention, the property in relation to which there has been a contravention is to stand forfeited to the Government, subject to the Court directing to the contrary. The Court can for reasons to be recorded refrain from directing the forfeiture if in its opinion it is not necessary to do so. So, in a case where initially an order of confiscation has been passed under section 6A, and the dealer is subsequently prosecuted, the Court is entitled to look into the whole matter and to see whether there were reasons for not directing so. If it finds that it is not necessary to order forfeiture of the goods, it can direct that the goods need not be forfeited. In that case the initial order of the Collector would stand modified or abrogated. Thus the orders under section 6A are provisional, that is they are subject to the orders passed by the Court. Section 7 does not require that the contravention for which the dealer was liable to be punished under it, was something different in nature and character than the contravention for which an order of forfeiture is to be passed by the Collector in the first instance Under Section 6A. That shows that the contravention which entails forfeiture is of the same kind as that for which a dealer can be punished. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the question whether there was mens rea was relevant at the stage of passing an order of forfeiture under Section 6A.;